Is the Universe Digital?

[UfarkTheRipe]

I don't know. That's why I'm asking.

 

[SpaceYeti]

In what way? I mean, any one, specific thing is either true or it's false, so it's somewhat digital, if that counts. How do you mean, though?

 

[kvothe27]

To be digital is to be discontinuous/discrete in representing some data. As a result, some information is lost, due to the continuous nature of the data being represented, even if it's often negligible to our human perceptions. So, unless the universe is actually some discrete representation (via perhaps some form of Berkley's Idealism or the matrix), I'm going to say no.

 

[r4ch3l]

I.think so; computers mirror the way the universe operates.
A lot of the work I did in philosophy centered around the concepts of binary realism/informational realism. I'm very influenced by G. Spencer-Brown's Laws of Form. You may find his concept useful in answering the question for yourself.

http://homepages.math.uic.edu/~kauffman/KauffSAND.pdf

http://fractalontology.wordpress.com/2007/11/25/universal-computation-and-the-laws-of-form/

Also google "Shea Zellweger logic alphabet". He's created a symmetrical system of logical operators that map to Boolean operations and mirror biological systems (crystallography, chirality).

Typing from a severely cracked iPhone, apologies (or possibly: you're welcome) for brevity or (more than usual) incoherence.

 

[r4ch3l]

In what way? I mean, any one, specific thing is either true or it's false, so it's somewhat digital, if that counts. How do you mean, though?

Relevant (also same author as link #2):
http://homepages.math.uic.edu/~kauffman/TimeParadox.pdf

 

[just george]

Yes. I did a lot of looking into of the important spatial arrangements of the universe, to see where important scalar overlaps happened in terms of time and space, using distance as a sextant of sorts since distance equals space divided by time.

Anyway, it seems that the universe is a fractal construct that looks like an amalgamation between a computer and a hologram.

This starts to become clear when you look at the origins of the base 10, base rad, and base 60 mathematical systems in conjunction with where feet, inches, meters, miles, egyptian miles, and cubits come from.

A quick explanation is that the distances in our universe, when chopped up into inches/feet/meters are exactly the size of a pixel on the computer screen. That is why so many entities (atoms, planets etc) are integer values of those measures (eg the moon is 1/400th the size of the Earth, and is 1/400th the distance of the Sun away from the Earth, which is why when a lunar eclipse happens, the moon fits exactly over the sun to cause the eclipse. These distances aren't accidents - they happen according to the architecture of the universe).

Simultaneously, when you chop time up into minutes/seconds/hours and think of it the same way you think of MHz or GHz or gigaflops in a computer, then the same patterns that happen in a computer happen in the universe precisely, in fractals, in both directions ie scale bigger and scale smaller - like CPUs within CPUs, and pixels within pixels in the same scalar fractal repeating pattern.

 

[just george]

if you're interested in this sort of thing, this is very good

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw9lTB0hTNU

 

[Cognisant]

the moon fits exactly over the sun to cause the eclipse.

Spoiler

The rest of it was pretty dumb too, but that, wow.

Edit: Unless it was a joke, in which case that was brilliant.

I.e. a digital universe wouldn't be the real universe, merely a simulation of a universe inside the real universe, or perhaps a simulation of a simulation within a simulation, within the real universe.

 

[Architect]

At the most fundamental level is appears that the universe is discrete, the "quantum foam". This makes sense, it doesn't seem to make sense that the universe could be divided infinity many times. So yes, to the best of our knowledge the universe is discrete, or "digital" if you prefer. The more interesting question is whether it, in fact, is running on a computer. Some researchers are attempting to find out.

Actually the most fascinating idea of all is not whether this is true or not, but why the idea is so appealing to humans. We've got a history going back thousands of years on the idea of a machine intelligence, both the benefits and potential problems. And now, during the internet age, we find it somehow appealing that the universe is actually a computer simulation, why is that?

 

[Cognisant]

I don't dislike the idea that we're living in a computer simulation but to say reality isn't infinitely divisible is much the same as saying the universe itself is finite, and the apparently spontaneous existence of a finite something baffles me, whereas if the universe were infinite then a lot of the big problems can simply be answered by realising the questions being asked are absurd.

For example in an infinite universe asking "why are we here" is absurd because why wouldn't we be?

Of course if we are living in a computer simulation, which I agree is not only likely but probable then my conjecture is fairly irrelevant at this time.

 

[just george]

Spoiler

The rest of it was pretty dumb too, but that, wow.

Edit: Unless it was a joke, in which case that was brilliant.

I.e. a digital universe wouldn't be the real universe, merely a simulation of a universe inside the real universe, or perhaps a simulation of a simulation within a simulation, within the real universe.

Spoiler

Listen, before we go all Matrix and I ask you if that is really a keyboard you think you're typing on, why don't you tell me what a real universe is. Where does the simulation start, and where does it stop? Why are there discrete harmonic fractals in the manifestation of matter?

How about we just chat about ideas, while being polite - because really, none of us have a clue what the hell is going on.

 

[just george]

I don't dislike the idea that we're living in a computer simulation but to say reality isn't infinitely divisible is much the same as saying the universe itself is finite, and the apparently spontaneous existence of a finite something baffles me, whereas if the universe were infinite then a lot of the big problems can simply be answered by realising the questions being asked are absurd.

For example in an infinite universe asking "why are we here" is absurd because why wouldn't we be?

Of course if we are living in a computer simulation, which I agree is not only likely but probable then my conjecture is fairly irrelevant at this time.

Added to that, how about we realign our assessment of the universe and instead of looking at what is, we look at how what is is divided, and see if we can find a pattern.

Which there is, by the way. For example, the golden mean, and its manifestation.

 

[Cognisant]

Listen, before we go all Matrix and I ask you if that is really a keyboard you think you're typing on

It's a touchscreen.

How about we just chat about ideas, while being polite - because really, none of us have a clue what the hell is going on.

Don't be a subjectivist.

Why are there discrete harmonic fractals in the manifestation of matter?

Added to that, how about we realign our assessment of the universe and instead of looking at what is, we look at how what is is divided, and see if we can find a pattern.

Which there is, by the way. For example, the golden mean, and its manifestation.

Mathematics isn't devoid of emergent patterns but, and I know I'm going to regret this, what exactly are you getting at?

 

[just george]

It's a touchscreen.

So it's a simulated keyboard within a real computer, that itself may be an aspect of a simulated universe inside a real universe?

Don't be a subjectivist.

Don't trash what other people say without backing it up with something of your own.

Mathematics isn't devoid of emergent patterns but, and I know I'm going to regret this, what exactly are you getting at?

WELL...

What I mean is, we look up at the sky and say "this sky is really big. it's so big that we can't see the end of it...is there an end to it?"

Then at the same time, we look in a microscope or the data of a particle collider and say "all the tiny particles we put in this thing are made of more tiny particles...which are made of more tiny particles...is there an end to the tiny particles?"

Therefore, it makes sense to me to stop trying to get to a final integer value for the biggest thing in the sky and smallest thing in a microscope, and instead look at how all the "stuff" that makes everything up is actually separated.

Why do big things in the sky manifest according to the golden mean in the same way small things manifest according to the golden mean? Where does one loop in the spiral end and the other start? When do we stop calling one of the loops an electron and start calling it an atom, or a planet? How many loops, or parts of loops happen before we say that it has become different?

Imo, when dealing with infinity subjectively, understanding the repeating division is more important than understanding the infinity objectively.

 

[Cognisant]

...why?

I get that there's patterns and patterns are interesting because studying the patterns that emerge from a system is a great way to reverse engineer and thereby deduce what mechanisms that the system works by, but how that applies to subjectivity my brain just cannot grasp.

Physics isn't subjective, subjectivity is dependant upon the individuality of subjects and subjects (people's minds) are comprised of mechanisms which are manifest in physical processes, so physics is is the same regardless what subjective perspective you view it from.

*jumps off a building* "I believe I can fly..."
*splats on the ground*

Nope.

 

[just george]

You answered your own question. The whole point of studying physics is to manipulate the world around us for our own benefit. Sure, there are some die hards that want to know just because, but for the most part, there is a definite manipulative goal in mind.

In regards to your statement that "physics isn't subjective", I think that you have a big problem in that we may be dealing with phenomena that may only be objectively understood from a subjective viewpoint.

Take Einsteins "spooky particles" for example, whereby the results of experiments changed depending on whether or not an experimenter was thinking about the results of the experiment.

From one point of view, you could say that reality is the result of the subjection of the experimenter.

From another point of view, you might say that the reality is objective in that the experiment and experimenter exist together within a closed system.

But then you start thinking "what if there was another experimenter, looking at the first experimenter and the experiment at the same time? When is the system open or closed?"

After that you start thinking "if someones thought or intent affects the physical world, then why are we only studying the physical world, and not simultaneously looking at the thought/spiritual world?" since it is clear that reality is the product of the two.

Which is what Tesla said, btw.

 

[Cognisant]

Take Einsteins "spooky particles" for example, whereby the results of experiments changed depending on whether or not an experimenter was thinking about the results of the experiment.

Oh not this again, look the act of observing an experiment changes the outcome because observing involves bouncing photons or electrons off things, which are themselves particles which of course affects the trajectory of the particles being observed.

The experimentor has NOTHING to do with it.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_woo

 

[walfin]

At the most fundamental level is appears that the universe is discrete, the "quantum foam".

This.

This makes sense, it doesn't seem to make sense that the universe could be divided infinity many times.

Unless it were a fractal. Which raises another question. Would the Weierstrass function, for instance, be considered discrete?

 

[just george]

and I know I'm going to regret this, what exactly are you getting at?

Oh not this again

The experimentor has NOTHING to do with it.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_woo

Does so. Same with people changing the results of random number generators by thinking about them.

 

[Cognisant]

 

[kvothe27]

Right. So, I'm working off the following definition:

Digital data, in information theory and information systems, are discrete, discontinuous representations of information or works, as contrasted with continuous, or analog signals which behave in a continuous manner, or represent information using a continuous function.

It appears discrete because we're chopping it up in our heads via concepts. Measurement tools themselves are useful insofar as we can conceptualize a use for them. So, even applying external measurements to chop the universe up into discrete pieces is a manifestation of what we do internally. Without us chopping this stuff up in our heads, how are things actually discrete? When I meditate and thereby remove my conceptual filters, things become continuous (that intuitive sense of oneness).

Conceptualization, in being a form of abstraction, is discrete insofar as information is lost when abstracting a more general understanding from a great deal, if not infinite, detail. Concepts, in being useful and in the way it removes details to enhance understanding, is something to which we become habituated. So, much as a representation of information via bits results in some loss of information, even if that information lost is largely negligible to us, so does a representation of information via concepts.

So, much as a clock maker wants to think some God engineered the universe, many of us like to think the universe is like a computer simulation. It's just us -- that is, our tendency to form tools, such as conceptual tools -- projecting some aspect of ourselves onto the universe. It's a manifestation of our tool-making and tool-using nature. Some people may like the idea of the universe being a computer simulation for the same reason most people have liked some form of anthropomorphism (God, animism, etc.).

But, I suppose someone could point out that I'm just projecting my intuitive sense of oneness onto the universe. :/ The only thing that makes me opposed to that is my experience of conceptualizing apparently continuous information. This makes me think that the digital representation of data on a computer is only discrete because we're mentally chopping it up in our minds. Without someone to chop up or interpret what's going on, the computer, with all its bits, would just be continuous (part of the oneness of the universe). It's our tendency as humans to conceptualize that makes it discrete. Thus, if the universe appears discrete, it's due to the way we conceptualize, not with how the universe actually is.

How is the universe in actuality? This is a matter of presupposition, I suppose. One could say it actually is discrete, but that I'm interpreting it as being continuous, in the first place, from which I derive some discrete representation. . . *sigh*

 

[r4ch3l]

Actually the most fascinating idea of all is not whether this is true or not, but why the idea is so appealing to humans. We've got a history going back thousands of years on the idea of a machine intelligence, both the benefits and potential problems. And now, during the internet age, we find it somehow appealing that the universe is actually a computer simulation, why is that?

Maybe not so much appealing as possible or rational/logical? I find it interesting that the concept that the universe is a computer appeals to many atheists/"rational" types because the idea is very theistic to me (though I realize that universe-as-computer doesn't have to equate to determinism).

The invisibility of data moving across computer networks + the invisibility of virtual states in quantum physics combined with the fact that both data and virtual state are related to dynamic processes has captured my imagination but I am too much of a dilettante to speculate at depth or speak about the science side with any proficiency.

Philosophers and scientists have often have used the technology of their time to better understand or explain the human mind and experience (e.g. Descartes and his “moving
statues” in the French Royal Gardens or Hilbert’s quest to prove the
equivalence of human mind and computer).

 

[r4ch3l]

It appears discrete because we're chopping it up in our heads via concepts.

But, I suppose someone could point out that I'm just projecting my intuitive sense of oneness onto the universe. :/

Check this out, I believe you're right but the paradox is that binary is just unity in oscillation. But this guy (commenting on/interpreting the Diamondsutra) talks about how the mental distinctions are illusory.

 

[The Introvert]

The only way to find out is to create our own version of the matrix, (effectively becoming gods) and comparing that world and our own.

We may be looking into a little mirror positioned to look like a computer monitor.

Also, we should, like, think to no means some more.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Does so. Same with people changing the results of random number generators by thinking about them.

... Um, what? Are you talking about the Global Consciousness Project?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Consciousness_Project

 

[just george]

... Um, what? Are you talking about the Global Consciousness Project?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Consciousness_Project

Nope

 

[UfarkTheRipe]

If we are running on a computer, were won't be able to tell if the computer was powerful or pathetic. Being in a closed system the passage of time would never change for us(aside from the slight differences caused by gravity wells)

We could be running on a Pentium II computer running Windows 95b(Because it had usb support) and some of the particles in a cubic nanometer are stored on a usb thumbdrive. Each parent particle's direction, speed, composition, and interactions are tracked and calculated. Remaining particles are simulated as children of actual calculated particles. After all calculations have been made for that cube, the data is stored on the thumbdrive. The thumbdrive is then removed and stored in a painstakingly systematic method. Load up the next thumbdrive, rinse and repeat until all the volume of cubic nanometers that it takes to make this universe have been processed. Then move time forward one tick of whatever timeslice you are using and start all over.

It might take a two hundred fifty eight heptillion years to process a hundredth of a second and we would never know. We could be in a beowolf cluster or paper cutouts on gigantic corkboard.

Maybe electron drift in the cpu accounts for things like quantum leaps, entanglement, or the uncertainty principle. If the curator of the computer would have cleaned the pet dander out of his cpu cooler every couple months, that nonsense would never happen!

My Windows 95b Universe theory inherently requires no proof just like punctuated equilibrium.

 

[UfarkTheRipe]

If the universe is digital, are the voxels the size of a Planck length?

 

[Symmetricon]

If by digital you mean discrete wedges of space, then one could reasonably assume this to be correct as there exists a lower bound greater than zero that measures physical space. With regard to time being continuous or discrete, in terms of mathematics you can treat time as discrete or continuous. In physical reality our equipment has limits so we can only measure non-zero intervals of time, at such relatively small time-intervals the question lacks present meaning.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

Philosophers and scientists have often have used the technology of their time to better understand or explain the human mind and experience (e.g. Descartes and his “moving
statues” in the French Royal Gardens or Hilbert’s quest to prove the
equivalence of human mind and computer).

Yep.
The unfortunate thing is, they usually persist to defend their ridiculous analogy
and spend precious time modeling delicate systems to support their view until a new technology becomes available.
And... whoops... it's out of the window.

Does the painting of a chair determine the nature of the actual chair?

 

[Architect]

If the universe is digital, are the voxels the size of a Planck length?

Yes it seems so

 

[Cognisant]

The only way to find out is to create our own version of the matrix, (effectively becoming gods) and comparing that world and our own.

Of all possible and existing simulations this one seems rather pointless, unless that itself is the point.

*re-reads thread*
Ahh good times.

 

[Huggogguh]

Does so. Same with people changing the results of random number generators by thinking about them.

The very nature of a random number generator would make it impossible to consistently predict results, therefore making it impossible to prove that the results were changed. Much less by a persons thoughts.

Are there any specific studies that you're basing this postulation on?